jcd11235 0 #26 January 4, 2005 QuoteEven when you're off topic you can't even stay off topic. Carter's issues with the election in 2004 had nothing to do with Bush being the incumbent. Please stay on topic, I don't care about your radical views on the 2004 election result. It only serves to illustrate that no democracy is good enough for you and you'll find any pretext to tear even a highly legitimate one down, quoting a mass murdering sociopath dictator like Stalin in the process, who ironically was Saddam's principal role model. So you are in favor of election fraud as long as there is an appearance of fair elections? I don't understand. Isn't that what Iraq already had? "Where a government has come into power through some form of popular vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted, since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted". - Ernesto Che GuevaraMath tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #27 January 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteEven when you're off topic you can't even stay off topic. Carter's issues with the election in 2004 had nothing to do with Bush being the incumbent. Please stay on topic, I don't care about your radical views on the 2004 election result. It only serves to illustrate that no democracy is good enough for you and you'll find any pretext to tear even a highly legitimate one down, quoting a mass murdering sociopath dictator like Stalin in the process, who ironically was Saddam's principal role model. So you are in favor of election fraud as long as there is an appearance of fair elections? I don't understand. Isn't that what Iraq already had? "Where a government has come into power through some form of popular vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted, since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted". - Ernesto Che Guevara According to you tha's what America has now. You'll never be satisfied. I don't agree with your observations, and I'm a realist, I think there's a low level of election fraud on both sides in every election in America. You can spout all you like about "conditions for elections" in Iraq, but this is a political ploy to delegitimize the process there and ultimately it's a wicked and monsterous conceit by those on the left who have the gaul to claim to be compassionate about the plight of Iraqis. You'd send those souls in Iraq into the maw of theocratic terror and civil war for generations over domestic political chagrin. Undefined conditions that can never be met is all you offer. What happens when your conditions aren't met for elections? Withdraw? Advocate a position or a plan instead of sitting on the sidelines carping and undermining a road towards freedom with your contrived pessimism. Elections with international observers and as much credibility as they can muster is the solution. This is one of the pillars of long term success in Iraq. Being obsessed with the failure of democracy in America you will doubtless find fault with whatever happens in Iraq. The reality hardly matters. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #28 January 4, 2005 QuoteYou can spout all you like about "conditions for elections" in Iraq, but this is a political ploy to delegitimize the process there and ultimately it's a wicked and monsterous conceit by those on the left who have the gaul to claim to be compassionate about the plight of Iraqis. To be fair...I haven't seen that many people criticizing the idea of holding elections in Iraq. I wouldn't characterize that as a "left" position. More of an extremist position. I'm hoping against hope that they have a decisive, undisputed (at least not legitimately disputed) election. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #29 January 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteYou can spout all you like about "conditions for elections" in Iraq, but this is a political ploy to delegitimize the process there and ultimately it's a wicked and monsterous conceit by those on the left who have the gaul to claim to be compassionate about the plight of Iraqis. To be fair...I haven't seen that many people criticizing the idea of holding elections in Iraq. I wouldn't characterize that as a "left" position. More of an extremist position. I'm hoping against hope that they have a decisive, undisputed (at least not legitimately disputed) election. Then I can sincerely join you and anyone else in that hope and respect you for it. I'm detecting a lot of anticipation and low level preamble in the runup over legitimacy issues and it leaves me wondering if it's the prelude to a politically motivated mainstream media assault. I would like the honest and realistic facts on the ground taken in context across an entire nation to mean something. We know the terrorists will try to derail this, but it will be as much about making headlines as it will be about genuinely disrupting turnout. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #30 January 4, 2005 I think you may be mistaking the fear of the elections not being considered legitimate, with gleeful anticipation of it. I fear that they won't come off, not for lack of trying, but for lack of desire by the Iraqis. But I sure as hell don't hope that's the case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #31 January 4, 2005 QuoteI think you may be mistaking the fear of the elections not being considered legitimate, with gleeful anticipation of it. I fear that they won't come off, not for lack of trying, but for lack of desire by the Iraqis. But I sure as hell don't hope that's the case. I wouldn't have said gleeful, but if you send your reporters into any election looking for issues you'll find them. A bomb or machine gun attack on a polling booth makes headlines, the millions of Iraqis voting at thousands of other polls may not. The terrorists may have an easy job if this is decided by the headlines in the Old Gray Lady and the Devil's work will be done for him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #32 January 4, 2005 QuoteAccording to you tha's what America has now. You'll never be satisfied. I don't agree with your observations, and I'm a realist, I think there's a low level of election fraud on both sides in every election in America. What is what we have now? (serious question, I need more than a pronoun for definition, no offense) As for the election fraud in this country, could you show me where it has favored the Democratic party? I'm not saying that the Democrats are all noble, but your's is the first accusation of Democrat election fraud that I've heard, at least in recent years. There are lots of cases where the "error" favors the Republicans, especially when there is solely Republican oversight of the election. For more info, check out http://blackboxvoting.org or http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp?sort=date&selectstate=FL&selectproblemtype=ALL QuoteYou can spout all you like about "conditions for elections" in Iraq, but this is a political ploy to delegitimize the process there and ultimately it's a wicked and monsterous conceit by those on the left who have the gaul to claim to be compassionate about the plight of Iraqis. You'd send those souls in Iraq into the maw of theocratic terror and civil war for generations over domestic political chagrin. This sounds like the same argument that claims dissent is unpatriotic, or unAmerican. If stopping civil war were your concern, why remove SH at all? He was keeping that from breaking out. Do I not have a right, as a citizen and a veteran, to expect my county to have a just foreign policy, and to not meddle in other nation's affairs for profit? I am an idealist, which differs from a realist by understanding that there are alternatives to the current status quo. QuoteUndefined conditions that can never be met is all you offer. What happens when your conditions aren't met for elections? Withdraw? Advocate a position or a plan instead of sitting on the sidelines carping and undermining a road towards freedom with your contrived pessimism. Okay. Turn command authority In Iraq over to the U.N. preferrably, accompanied by an apology from Shrub to, primarily the Iraqi people, and secondly to the international community, for threatening hopes of world peace and increasing global terrorism. Then remove the veto power from the permanent members of the Security Council, and give it to the General Assembly. Next, join the World Court. That would be a good start, anyway, and would remove from the insurgents (read enemy soldiers), as well as the rest of the international community, the ability to use anti-American sentiment as a rallying flag. Of course it is not the status quo, and considering the general tendancy against conscious change, such improvements are unlikely to be implemented. QuoteElections with international observers and as much credibility as they can muster is the solution. This is one of the pillars of long term success in Iraq. Being obsessed with the failure of democracy in America you will doubtless find fault with whatever happens in Iraq. The reality hardly matters. Yet when such international observers as the Carter Foundation bring our attention to our own obsticles to free elections, you dismiss them as unimportant. After all, not many election outcomes have changed with recounts. I am having little difficulty seeing reality, but there are many on the right who refuse to open their eyes to it, simply because the status quo favors their candidates.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #33 January 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteAccording to you tha's what America has now. You'll never be satisfied. I don't agree with your observations, and I'm a realist, I think there's a low level of election fraud on both sides in every election in America. What is what we have now? (serious question, I need more than a pronoun for definition, no offense) "that's" it's a typo, the "t" is dropped. Quote Yet when such international observers as the Carter Foundation bring our attention to our own obsticles to free elections, you dismiss them as unimportant. After all, not many election outcomes have changed with recounts. I am having little difficulty seeing reality, but there are many on the right who refuse to open their eyes to it, simply because the status quo favors their candidates. Again you conveniently confuse two elections 4 years apart, you don't even try the bait and switch this time. Just because an election doesn't elect your candidate it doesn't automatically delegitimize it. Your attitude confounds democracy. You refuse to accept a fair and legitimate result and when you bitch about it you intentionally confuse elections 4 years apart. A few more extremists of your ilk and the USA could do a good impression of a the Ukraine on a bad election night. That's not some accusation of "un-Americanism", it's reasonable criticism based on your stubborn adherence to irrational accusations of election fraud and deliberate muddling of facts from two elections when making your case indicating a degree of cynicism in doing so. You can label it what you like, I didn't use the phrase to describe you. As I said, I don't really care what your laughable position is on American democracy (at least in the on topic context). It only lets me know that you have no capacity for objectivity when it comes to election results. The facts of any Iraqi election hardly matter with you. You think the USA's 2004 election results are illegitimate, Iraq should be so lucky. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #34 January 4, 2005 hmmm. well I didn't approve of the invasion. But its done, and now we've gotta make the best of it. The way I see it is that the future of Iraq has to start somewhere. The election on Jan 30 is supposed to be an elected INTERIM government. I think they plan to hold another election next year or something. Anyway, we gotta take what we can get. What else can we do? sitting around complaining about how its not going to be a perfect election does no good unless you have a real & workable alternative. Iraq's future has to start somewhere. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #35 January 4, 2005 QuoteThe election on Jan 30 is supposed to be an elected INTERIM government. I think they plan to hold another election next year or something. Exactly. The current gov't was put in place by us. This one will be put in place through a, for lack of a better term, half-assed process. BUT, it will be an Iraqi half-assed process. This gov't will then be tasked with writing a constitution which will specify how future governments are chosen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #36 January 4, 2005 Quote"that's" it's a typo, the "t" is dropped. I overlooked the typo, actually. Perhaps I should rephrase my question. If you were going to replace "tha[t]" with a noun, what would that noun be? I am not clear wht you are referring to with that particular pronoun.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #37 January 4, 2005 Quote Again you conveniently confuse two elections 4 years apart, you don't even try the bait and switch this time. Just because an election doesn't elect your candidate it doesn't automatically delegitimize it. Your attitude confounds democracy. You refuse to accept a fair and legitimate result and when you bitch about it you intentionally confuse elections 4 years apart. A few more extremists of your ilk and the USA could do a good impression of a the Ukraine on a bad election night. Not bait and switch, just sticking to topic. Here's an example from 2002 in FL http://www.csl.sri.com/users/neumann/insiderisks.html#149 You do, however seem to be dodging the election irregularities that overwhelmingly favor your favorite party. Let's try to stick to topic, shall we? You call me an extremist. I have to ask, can you think of a single great moderate idea in history? Today's radicals hold the views of tomorrows conventionalists. So, coming from a conventionalist as yourself, I will take that as a compliment. As for Iraq's situation, We can't fix Shrub's mistake within the month, but as someone on here said, Iraq's future has to begin somewhere. I just believe touting it as a victory is total BS. We are doing nothing but trying to fix the mess we made. I do think that the Iraqi people should be the ones that decide their future, but it has to be of their own accord. Just because we give the oppurtunity to vote, if a substantial percentage of their eligible population abstains, due to fear (likely) or boycott (self-defeating), then the election loses objective fairness, which is the goal of a democratic government, correct? To imply that we have done Iraq a favor by destroying their country and killing thousands of the civilians for whom we claimed we were invading, that is nothing short of apalling, from my perspective. There may in fact be some good come out of this situation, but there was nothing good or just about our invasion. It is a low point in U.S. history, not something to speak of proudly.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #38 January 4, 2005 QuoteQuote"that's" it's a typo, the "t" is dropped. I overlooked the typo, actually. Perhaps I should rephrase my question. If you were going to replace "tha[t]" with a noun, what would that noun be? I am not clear wht you are referring to with that particular pronoun. I was referring to the quote immediately above (seemed obvious). A suitable substitute would be "election fraud is". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #39 January 4, 2005 Quote To imply that we have done Iraq a favor by destroying their country and killing thousands of the civilians for whom we claimed we were invading, that is nothing short of apalling, from my perspective. There may in fact be some good come out of this situation, but there was nothing good or just about our invasion. It is a low point in U.S. history, not something to speak of proudly. I specifically remember Prime Minister Tony Blair explicitly stating those good additional outcomes before the invasion during Prime Minister's question time at the height of debate on the issue in the UK "Even if Iraq did not have WMD.... would still be justification for war.", he wasn't saying they didn't have WMDs, rather he was listing additional justifications. Since he's Bush's poodle according to the left wing nuts in Britain that must have been in Bush's thoughts too. I think they talk you know. Of course those good outcomes like freedom and democracy have everything to do with this invasion. Despite your attempt to highlight the negative and ignore the good, freedom and democracy flourishing in Iraq will go down in history as a monumental achivement. No thanks to you et.al. I've always anticipated it from the outset and it was an integral part of my support for this campaign from the beginning. Pretending post-facto that the war and it's positive outcomes are separable is exactly why you've never understood people who support this conflict. (edit: the above sounds pompous like I'm taking credit for something, I'm not trying to, but I'm trying to justify my support when the foundations of it are being hijacked) I'm actually stunned, we sit here discussing one of the major positive outcomes Bush has been planning from the outset of this conflict and getting criticized for the execution of and you try to separate that from the war as if it's some abstract thing. You're actually claiming we just went in to kill a bunch of people for the hell of it and freedom and democracy if it happens was just a happy accident and we should be ashamed. You're incorrigible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #40 January 4, 2005 Quotehmmm. well I didn't approve of the invasion. But its done, and now we've gotta make the best of it. The way I see it is that the future of Iraq has to start somewhere. The election on Jan 30 is supposed to be an elected INTERIM government. I think they plan to hold another election next year or something. Anyway, we gotta take what we can get. What else can we do? sitting around complaining about how its not going to be a perfect election does no good unless you have a real & workable alternative. Iraq's future has to start somewhere. I agree with you 100%. This had better work for their future and ours. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #41 January 5, 2005 QuoteI'm actually stunned, we sit here discussing one of the major positive outcomes Bush has been planning from the outset of this conflict and getting criticized for the execution of and you try to separate that from the war as if it's some abstract thing. You're actually claiming we just went in to kill a bunch of people for the hell of it and freedom and democracy if it happens was just a happy accident and we should be ashamed. You're incorrigible. If Bush weren't currently on his third reason for the war, your argument might be valid, but he has done nothing but change his position to spin mistakes in Iraq positively. To suggest he had honorable intentions completely disregards the fact that helied about reasons to go to war in the first place. Instead, he had to use scare tactics against Americans with threats of imminent attack by WMD, which his adminastration had previously acknowledged did not likely exist in Iraq. I'm wondering why I should be ashamed for not remaining quiet as my government f___s up. It takes integrity to dissent, but only fear to be complacent.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #42 January 5, 2005 QuoteWe know in hindsight that Shrub did not win FL in 2000, so any re-election as an incumbent is inherently fraudulent. Maybe you missed the numerous news sources that did an independent recount of their own with their own standards, and still Bush won. Or maybe you are hinting at the charges of voter intimidation that were brought up, and also shown to not be false allegations.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #43 January 5, 2005 QuoteMaybe you missed the numerous news sources that did an independent recount of their own with their own standards, and still Bush won. You must have missed all the news stories of eligible voters being prged from the registers. Or last minute polling place changes made in predominately Democratic precincts. You can't recount votes that were not able to be made, and accounted for far more votes than the narrow margin Shrub "won" by.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #44 January 5, 2005 QuoteYou must have missed all the news stories of eligible voters being purged from the registers. Mistakes were made in implementing a new state law. Many more whites were puged than blacks, a fact usually ignored. Can you show us the evidence that the mistakes were part of a plan by republicans? QuoteOr last minute polling place changes made in predominately Democratic precincts. You can't recount votes that were not able to be made, and accounted for far more votes than the narrow margin Shrub "won" by. Was this part of a republican plan? Or the efect of decisions made by democratic county officials? Reminds me of the implication by many that the butterfly ballot confusion was an intentional plan by republicans, but was actually the result of a democratic official.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #45 January 5, 2005 QuoteIf this county hadn't had MAJOR voting discrepancies for two consecutive presidential elections, you would have a point. We know in hindsight that Shrub did not win FL in 2000, so any re-election as an incumbent is inherently fraudulent. Let it go...Recount after recount proves your statements wrong. And his clear victory in the last election just strengthens that point. Really Moveon(.org)"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #46 January 5, 2005 Al Jazeera is reporting Al Zarqarwi's capture http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_id=6517 Hopefully it's true and accurate............you know how Al-Jazeera can be sometimesMarc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
